External Examiner's Handbook

2012/13

Should you require this document in an alternative format please contact: Stephen Naylor Email: S.M.A.Naylor@gre.ac.uk

Tel:

+44 (0)208 331 8159

Contents
Contents.................................................................................................................................... 3 Welcome to the University ..................................................................................................... 4 University Facts and Figures ................................................................................................ 5 Academic Structure................................................................................................................. 6 The role of an external examiner at the University of Greenwich ................................... 7 The role of the External Examiner at Greenwich ............................................................... 9 (Extracted from the Academic Regulations, November 2010)......................................... 9 What information you can expect from your School? ...................................................... 11 Attendance at the University ............................................................................................... 13 The nature and role of Subject Assessment Panels (SAPS) ......................................... 14 A PAB sheet exemplar: coding demystified ................................................................. 18 Academic Regulations .......................................................................................................... 19 University Pass mark ........................................................................................................ 19 Compensation .................................................................................................................... 20 Compensation .................................................................................................................... 20 Condonement .................................................................................................................... 20 Re-assessment .................................................................................................................. 21 Undergraduate first degree classification ...................................................................... 23 Aggregation and Weighting (Overall Grade Point Average) ...................................... 23 Borderline Judgements .................................................................................................... 23 Extenuating circumstances .............................................................................................. 24 Postgraduate Awards ....................................................................................................... 25 Case Studies of PAB profiles leading to reporting issues .......................................... 27 Submitting your report using the Online Reporting System ....................................... 33 Principles for completing your report ............................................................................. 35 Claiming Fees and Expenses.............................................................................................. 40 Termination of Appointment ................................................................................................ 41 Resignation ........................................................................................................................ 41 Early termination of appointment .................................................................................... 41 School of Architecture, Design and Construction ........................................................... 43 Business School .................................................................................................................... 43 School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences .......................................................... 44 School of Education .............................................................................................................. 44 School of Engineering .......................................................................................................... 45 School of Health and Social Care....................................................................................... 45 School of Humanities ............................................................................................................ 46 Medway School of Pharmacy .............................................................................................. 46 Medway School of Science ................................................................................................. 47

Welcome to the University Thank you for accepting our invitation to act as an external examiner. Although in recent years much has changed in the management and assurance of quality in higher education, the bedrock for maintaining the standard of awards is the external examiner system. Your knowledge and experience will ensure that we can maintain high quality programmes at the University of Greenwich. The University continues to place great importance upon its examiners for the breadth, depth and independent professional viewpoints that you bring to bear when reviewing the standards of assessments, the fitness for purpose of quality processes relating to assessments and the level of achievement our students attain. Your views as a critical peer will be invaluable in enhancing our provision and we look forward to working with you. The University can trace its history back to Woolwich in 1890, when the newly founded Woolwich Polytechnic, only the second Polytechnic in the country, began teaching courses in 38 different subjects. The Polytechnics revised Charter of 1895 stated that the object of the institution was the promotion of the industrial skill, general knowledge, health and well-being of young men and women belonging to the poorer classes'. After a period as Thames Polytechnic (1970 to 1991), the Polytechnic was granted University status in 1992. The University today retains a commitment to widening participation, employability and expanding opportunities for its students: aims that still reflect the reasons for the founding of the original Polytechnic over a century ago. The University has three main campuses: Maritime Greenwich, situated in the Old Royal Naval College, Avery Hill, in Eltham, and Medway, at Chatham. It is organized into nine Schools, each comprising a number of departments with a particular discipline or subject focus, ranging right across the academic spectrum, from vocational programmes to the more traditional academic disciplines. The university works closely with 12 Partner colleges, 2 specialist and 9 Colleges of Further Education, in the local region. Nationally the School of Education maintains links with some 20 Colleges which deliver a PGCE (PCET) in collaboration with the University. The Universitys international links are diverse, seven of the nine Schools collaborating with Partners from Europe to Asia and the Far East. No doubt your appointment as an examiner will make demands on your time but I hope that you find your period of appointment worthwhile through the sharing of expertise and good practice. With best wishes Professor David Maguire Vice Chancellor
4

University Facts and Figures

Enrolments University Based Partner & Link College Based PCET Centre Based Total Studying in the UK Students studying wholly overseas Level of Study Undergraduates Postgraduates Mode of Study Full Time/Sandwich Part Time Gender Male Female Ethnicity Asian Other Bangladeshi Black African Black Caribbean Black Other Chinese Indian Mixed Pakistani White Other Not Given UK/EU/Overseas UK EU Overseas 21,470 1,135 5,118 77% 4% 19% 2,038 1,241 4,026 1,202 346 843 2,214 1,078 756 12,467 545 964 7% 4% 15% 4% 1% 3% 8% 4% 3% 45% 2% 3% 13,186 14,537 48% 52% 19,289 8,436 70% 30% 21,903 5,820 79% 21% Total 23,204 3,746 773 27,723 11,551 FTE 17,602 3,010 325 20,937 8,069

Academic Structure
The University is organised academically into 4 Faculties, each consisting of a number of academic Schools. The latter, since 2001 have retained responsibility for Quality Assurance and Enhancement within a framework set by the central University. Each School in turn is composed of individual departments organised by subject discipline. Each School is run by a Dean who is assisted by Directors in three key areas; Resources, Research and Learning & Quality. For the purposes of Quality Assurance the key role for each School is the Director of Learning and Quality (SDLQ) who maintains an overview of quality procedures, processes and standards. The SDLQ works closely with a School based quality assurance officer (SQAO) to ensure that the University QA policies are implemented in a manner appropriate both to the School and to the University. The Deans of School and SDLQs retain functional links to the central University through membership of the University Executive and a Learning and Quality Committee respectively. Implementation of the Universitys QA is monitored at School level by a School Learning and Quality Committee which reports to a School Board and thence to the Universitys senior deliberative committee, the Academic Council.

The role of an external examiner at the University of Greenwich

An external examiner at the university is an independent reviewer of assessments and student work with the aim of contributing to the moderation of standards and providing the University with a report on the standards achieved, the comparability of standards with other known Higher Education Institutions and the extent to which the programme of study meets the expectations of industry and the professions. The final outcomes of examining are recommendations for enhancing the academic provision and the student experience. The role can be divided into three main categories, and how the examiner works with individual Schools may vary as a result of the perceived different balances and requirements of those Schools in respect of these categories. Examiner Product You act as an examiner of output and the standards achieved by those outputs. For example: review of assessments designed by the School and review of the student achievement in the resultant work submitted. You will be expected to provide a view upon how effective and appropriate the assessments are in measuring the intended outcomes of the programme or course together with a view on the level of student achievement which might indicate areas for improvement in teaching practice or areas for commendation of teaching and learning practices. Auditor - Process You act as an auditor on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Schools implementation of University processes for assuring the standards of its awards. In this capacity you might for example provide commentary upon the deliberations of the Progress and Award Board, upon School implementation of University policies, upon the Universitys regulatory framework or perhaps the Schools management of the moderation process. These may include, for example, the impact of extenuation on the decision making processes of a Board of Examiners (but not individual cases), the application and consistency of University regulations governing the conferment of awards, or the consistency with which borderline grades are treated and subsequent awards conferred. This is not exhaustive but indicative of the regulatory areas we would ask you to bear in mind as part of your role. Your role will entail the endorsement of the decisions made by Progress and Awards Boards that you attend, normally through signature of the relevant papers that contain the student profiles and through confirmation in your annual report to the University. Consultant - Curriculum

You may be consulted by your School on changes that affect the student experience and the development of the curriculum. For example, changes to the programme structure or more particularly to the overall assessment regimes for the courses which you examine. During the course of the academic year your role will therefore normally include: Review and comment upon all first sittings of Examination papers for the courses for which you are responsible Review and comment upon sample coursework assessments for the courses for which you are responsible Opportunities to attend the University, its Partners and to meet staff and students Opportunities to attend Subject Assessment Panels and provide an independent view on course standards Opportunity to attend Progress and Awards Boards to provide an independent view of student progression

But remember.you are NOT a third marker for internal examiners! Examiners have no special role in marking or adjudicating individual scripts and student work, and you are not expected to act as a third marker for any assessment where there is disagreement over a mark between internal examiners. The role of the internal examiners is to award an appropriate mark on the basis of the quality of the submitted work of a student. Your role in this respect is to review the standard of the marking across the cohort and advise upon its general appropriateness to the work submitted. You can recommend adjustments to cohort marks where there is evidence of under- or over-marking across grades. We would ask you to decline politely any requests to act as an individual third marker for any given student work.

The role of the External Examiner at Greenwich (Extracted from the Academic Regulations, November 2010)
6.14 The external examiner should: a) be able to satisfy herself/himself that each student is judged impartially on the basis of the work submitted for assessment, without being influenced by previous association with the programme, the staff or any of the students; b) be able to compare the performance of students with that of their peers on comparable courses of higher education elsewhere; c) approve the form and content of proposed examination papers and other assessments that count towards the award; d) be consulted about and agree to any proposed changes to the assessment regulations which will directly affect students currently studying for the award(s); e) be able to attend examiners meetings and have access to all assessed work; f) see samples of the work of all students proposed for the highest available category and for failure, and samples of the work of students proposed for each category, in order to ensure that each student is fairly placed in relation to the rest of the cohort; g) have an overview of the marks given by the internal markers, in order to comment on the standard of marking generally, and have the right to amend a mark or marks in consultation with the other members of the Progression and Award Board and in a manner ensuring fairness to all candidates; h) have the right to conduct a viva voce examination of any candidate; the viva voce being used: i. to determine difficult or borderline cases, such additional assessment being used only to raise and not to lower a students marks; as an alternative or additional assessment where valid reasons for poor performance have been established.

ii.

i.

satisfy themselves that the assessments are conducted in accordance with the regulations for the programme;

i) be involved with Subject Assessment Panels and attend, or be represented by another external examiner at the meeting of the Progression and Award Board at which decisions on recommendations for awards are made, to

ensure that those recommendations are reached by means according with the Universitys requirements and normal practice in higher education; j) to authorise the decisions made by the Progression and Award Board by signing off the results in accordance with the terms of reference of the Progression and Award Board. k) participate as required in reviews of decisions about individual students awards resulting from academic appeals; l) report to the University on the effectiveness of the assessments and any lessons to be drawn from them m) report to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, as Chair of the Academic Council on any matters of serious concern arising from the assessments, which put at risk the standard of the Universitys awards.

10

What information you can expect from your School?

You should be provided with the material that you need to fulfil your duties as an examiner in respect of the programmes and courses to which you have been appointed. The following list, whilst not necessarily exhaustive, is a threshold minimum of what you can expect to receive.

Course outlines and Programme Specification

Details of the courses and/or programmes for which you are responsible which should include as a minimum the Aims, Outcomes, Indicative Content, Assessment Regime and Key Texts Reading List

Programme handbook

The programme handbook is a more student focussed document which provides details on how the programme is structured, its aim, outcomes, courses and course outlines together with information on assessment regimes, submission dates and general information relating to University services and regulations. Where the programme has specific regulations these should also be included.

School Assessment Policy

Each School has devised its own local assessment policy which takes into account variations in discipline pedagogy. The Policies should contain information on maters relating to all aspects of assessment such as examiners, scheduling, marking, moderation, re-assessment, late submission of work, extenuation and aspects of the regulatory framework as delivered at a local level.

School SAP and PAB Schedule

The School should clearly indicate when it is running its assessment schedules and where and when it would expect you to attend its assessment meetings.

A statement of School policy on the size of the sample of student work to be reviewed by you.

This may be included in the School Assessment Policy, but if it is not there should be clear indications of the number of scripts that you can expect to see as part of your duties. If you have been appointed to act as an examiner for a programme/course which runs in multiple Partners you should expect to see clearly labelled samples from each Partner. The University requests that you comment upon the standards of each Partner in your final report at the end of session.

The last subject Review Report or Periodic (Internal Review) of the Programme or Subject Area
11

The University reviews its programmes on a rolling basis depending upon the period of approval, but in all cases it is no longer than 5 academic sessions. If you have been appointed to a collection of courses that span multiple programmes, you may expect to receive a summary of the courses outcomes from previous sessions in lieu of a programme review. These would normally be constituted by the Subject Assessment Panel Papers and reports

The last examiners report

If you are succeeding a previous examiner it would be more than helpful for you to have access to the previous incumbents view of the courses/programme over the previous four years. Over the course of the year you should also receive copies of the assessments for the courses under your jurisdiction and which the University asks you to review and comment upon their standard and appropriateness to the course and its intended outcomes

12

Attendance at the University

There are two key elements of the assessment year which you may be asked to attend. These are the Subject Assessment Panel (SAP) and the Progress and Awards Board (PAB). When you are required to come into the University will vary from School to School. Some Schools, which continue to utilise 15 credit courses will be running SAPs twice per annum in addition to its end of year PABs. Some Schools may request that you attend the SAP only in one session and alternate with PAB attendance in the following session. Depending upon the discipline you may be asked to attend other aspects of the Universitys management of its assessment processes and this may include such elements as practical assessments in Health related disciplines or teaching practices as part of the School of Educations programmes of study. Your School should make clear at the outset its expectations of when is the most appropriate time of the year for you to attend the University (and its Partners if you are responsible for collaborative provision). If you have been appointed to a programme that runs solely in a University Partner, your contact will normally be the HE Coordinator for that Partner or the Programme Leader for the particular programme for which you are responsible. If you are to examiner work that is specifically based in a University Partnership, it is the expectation of the University that you would normally visit the Partner at least once every two years twice during a period of tenure. You may request a meeting with students during the course of your duties. The University views this as particularly useful in its partnership arrangements. Such meetings, the outcomes of which need to be reported in your annual report will normally focus on qualitative issues surrounding the students experience of their programme, courses and the resources available to them to achieve the threshold standards required of the award.

13

The nature and role of Subject Assessment Panels (SAPS)

A Subject Assessment Panel (or in the School of Health, a Departmental Assessment Panel) is generally responsible for the consideration and review of the nature of assessments, examinations and the student results for a group of courses within the Panels subject area. It is responsible for the review and confirmation of student cohort marks for individual courses under its remit taking into account any circumstance that may have adversely or otherwise affected the delivery of the courses in the discipline. As part of this review it is expected to receive, note and act upon comments received from external examiners and course co-ordinators on the student cohorts performance on individual courses and other general issues that may has affected the delivery of the course(s) The Membership of Subject Assessment Panels normally includes the Head of the School (or nominee), teaching staff for courses under consideration by the Panel, as internal examiners and appropriate external examiner(s). What a SAP cannot do Adjust marks for any individual student UNLESS a recorded mark is proven inaccurate What a SAP can do Adjust cohort marks on the basis of consideration of all factors that contributed to teaching and learning on that course. The formal requirements placed upon the SAP are: a. The consideration and review of the nature of assessments and examinations for a group of courses within the Panels subject area; b. Receiving comments from external examiners and course co-ordinators on the student cohorts performance on individual courses. Membership: a. the Dean of the School (or nominee) within which the majority of courses lie, who shall be Chair; b. teaching staff for courses under consideration by the Panel, as internal examiners; c. appropriate external examiner(s) - (at least one external examiner must be involved and evidence provided for all Level 5 and Level 6 panels).

14

A SAP example (Percentages converted to Edexcel grades of Pass, Merit and Distinction)

15

The nature and role of Progress and Awards Boards (PABs)

The Progression and Award Board decides the final outcome of the results of the assessment for each student: whether to permit progression to the next level, conferment of an award, whether to require reassessment in failed elements or whether to agree a repeat year and so forth. The decisions of the Board are not subject to any further approval within the University but, in the case of an externally validated examination, they are subject to confirmation by the external body concerned. The PAB is responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained and that all the requirements for assessments that contribute to the giving of an Academic Award, as laid down in the programme and in the regulations of any other appropriate awarding or accrediting body, are complied with. No other body has authority to recommend to the University the conferment of an award, nor to amend the decision of a properly constituted Progression and Award Board acting within its terms of reference and in accordance with the regulations for the programme. The functions and terms of reference of the Board are:

To oversee award and progression procedures in designated programmes to maintain standards. To ensure that the requirements for progression and awards are complied with. To examine individual student assessment profiles. To review and make decisions on the progression of students and on reassessment in the light of overall performance, where necessary taking personal extenuating circumstances into account. To make decisions on awards. To authorise the decisions made, including certifying through the signing off of results by the Chair, the Officer and the external examiner and through the minuting of key decisions in relation to progression, reassessment in the light of overall performance and consideration of any extenuating circumstances.

Exceptionally it may be necessary to use Chairs action before making a final decision, and in such circumstances the Chair should normally consult the External Examiner. The decisions made by Chairs action must be recorded and presented for information at the next meeting of the Progression and Award Board. The membership of a Progression and Award Board shall normally include the following: A Dean of School or their nominee who shall be Chair; Appropriate programme leaders; Representative members of teaching staff as internal examiners; At least one external examiner. (for all Boards where an award may be decided);
16

The School L&Q office is responsible for ensuring that the decisions are recorded and minutes taken in accordance with University requirements and that PABs are advised of the appropriateness of decisions that need to be made in accordance with University regulations.

The proceedings of a Progression and Award Board are not invalidated by the absence of any person designated by the Chair as a member of the Board. The Progression and Awards Board shall be advised if any member has a personal or professional connection with any of the students being considered. The Chair has discretion to request anyone declaring an interest to retire from the meeting at the point at which discussion of the students profile takes place. Details of grades are considered by the Progression and Award Board and any matters discussed at their meeting are confidential to the Boards. In order to comply with the Data Protection Act, marks put on computer for the purpose of calculating a students grades etc, and which are not to be disclosed to the student, must be deleted from computer records within 40 days. Considerations of confidentiality shall not affect the requirement that students be kept advised of their academic progress and made aware of the means by which they are being assessed and when they are being assessed. Transcripts of students grades may be disclosed to outside bodies at the discretion of the Director of Student Affairs.

17

A PAB sheet exemplar: coding demystified

The exemplar below, a Midwifery student, where the details of name have been anonymised, shows the final stage and second year marks profile. Key:
Academic Level of the course The weighted average of year 2 (25%) and Year 3 (75%) grades

Academic session in which course was taken Credit value of the course

Course Code: a title listing is provided at the end of the PAB sheet

Final Year Average

EC indicates Extenuating Circumstances submitted and which academic session

Overall course grade

Assessment code indicates the nature of the assessment A Attendance Q Class Test C Coursework Y Essay E Examination W Fieldwork L Logbook F Portfolio P Practical D Practice O Presentation J Project R Report S Seminar T Tutorial U Undefined V Viva

Second Year Average

Credit points shows preponderance of grades at the highest and second highest classification level: in this example the student has 60 in the first class range and 180 in 2:1 and above: indicating a 2:1 as a final degree class and supporting the overall average of 61.1
18

Academic Regulations
The Universitys Academic Regulations can be found at: http://www2.gre.ac.uk/current-students/regs Section 5 concerns student progression and award, whilst Section 6 refers to external examining appointments and roles. The regulations will not be reproduced in full here but examiners should bear in mind the following general principles contained within them. Undergraduate classified degree awards are based upon a weighted average of the ultimate and penultimate years of the students programme of study in a ratio of 75% to 25% respectively.

The first and second years of non classified undergraduate awards (HNC, HND and Foundation Degrees) contribute to the overall student award and may lead to an award with Merit if a 60% averaged overall is achieved or With Distinction if an averaged overall grade is 70% or above.

Postgraduate awards may also be conferred with Merit or with Distinction based upon level of achievement across all 180/240 credits

University Pass mark The University pass mark is 40% for undergraduate students. The University pass mark is 50% at postgraduate level. No separate regulations exist for Edexcel (HNC/D) provision and all work is marked on a numeric scale, though converted on Edexcel certificates of achievement to Edexcel grades of Pass, Merit and Distinction. Some Schools may have an undergraduate/postgraduate component rule where the overall must be 40%/50% and no component drop below 30%/40%.

19

Compensation Students who fail courses may, where circumstances permit, be considered for the failure to be either compensated or condoned. That is, though a failure is recorded, the credit will be awarded, usually on the basis of a successful profile of marks elsewhere. Neither compensation nor condonement is viewed as automatic: the overall profile must be taken into account by the PAB before arriving at a decision to utilise either. The following is extracted from the Universitys Academic Regulations (November 2010) Compensation 5.19 Compensation for failure may be applied where a students work has been graded on the numerical scale and the overall grade falls in the band of 30-39%. In applying compensation, a Progression and Award Board will take into account the students overall profile and the significance of any failed courses to the aims of the programme. A programme may identify certain courses to which compensation cannot be applied. As appropriate, the Progression and Award Board will also consider the requirements of Professional Bodies.

5.20 Students who fail up to a maximum value of 30 credits at one stage of study may receive compensation for that failure provided that: (a) an average grade of 40% or more has been achieved across ALL courses at that stage; the grade for any individual course does not fall below 30%;

(b) 5.21

In cases where compensation is applied, the actual grade attained of 30-39% will be recorded and credits awarded. For the purpose of stage average/award classification, each compensated course will be computed as 40%. Information presented on student transcripts shall make it clear that grades/credits attained were obtained by compensation. Condonement

5.22

Exceptionally, and not in addition to the application of compensation, where up to 30 credits within a stage lies below 30% (the non-compensatable threshold) the Progression and Award Board may (after due consideration of programme learning outcomes) permit this outright failure to be condoned. The actual grade attained would be recorded for the calculation of Honours classification/Stage Average and appear on the transcript.

20

Re-assessment 5.23 In cases where compensation cannot be applied, the Progression and Award Board will take into account the degree of failure before deciding that either:

a. the student be allowed to resit failed courses (all or some of the elements ofassessment therein) prior to the commencement of the next stage OR b. the student be required to repeat the failed courses (all or only those failed components of assessment) within a period of two years OR c. the student be allowed to proceed to the next stage with intermediate standing (PI) carrying failure in a maximum of 30 credits. The Progression and Award Board will decide the extent of assessment and manner of attendance for students permitted to progress with such intermediate standing (PI). Unless the carry-over is a core course, students may be permitted to substitute the initial failure with an approved alternative course. (See also 5.25(c) below) Students will not normally be permitted an opportunity to resit failed courses if they have not engaged in the summative assessment tasks on those courses. An exception to this is where students have been granted extenuation. In such cases, absence or poor performance in assessment will result in a decision of deferral. 5.24 With regard to 5.23(a) the nature of any resit tasks must reflect the learning outcomes of initially failed elements of assessment. A student who undertakes a resit must obtain an overall grade of 40%. Therefore resit elements of assessment will be marked on the full numeric scale. Grades for reassessed elements will be computed with previously successful elements of assessment within that course.

5.25 Successful retrieval of failure in course(s) will result in the following grades being recorded for progression and classification purposes: a) Retrieval of failure attained through a resit will result in a bare pass grade of 40% being recorded for those elements that were reassessed. Student transcripts will reflect the real grade obtained in reassessed elements and also indicate that the overall grade was reduced as a result of such capping. The overall grade for the course will not be capped. For those students NOT offered a resit opportunity (see 5.23 (b) and (c) above) the following will apply: b) For those repeating and PI (progressed with intermediate standing) students retrieving failure through having to re-register for ALL of the assessment for a particular course(s), the overall grade attained in the reassessment will be recorded. This removal of capping will also apply to students, progressed with intermediate standing, who choose to be reassessed in a substitute course.

21

c) Where a student is required to be reassessed in a subsequent session by undertaking some BUT not all of the assessment requirements for a particular course, then grades for the elements of reassessment will be capped at 40%. The overall grade for the course will be calculated on the basis of any capped element(s) together with the grades gained for previously successful elements of assessment within that course. 5.26 Candidates being reassessed in a following session will not be reassessed in elements which are no longer current in the framework. A Progression and Award Board may, at its discretion, make such special arrangements as it deems appropriate in cases where it is impracticable for students to be reassessed in the same elements and by the same methods as at the first attempt. Candidates who fail to retrieve the initial failure at the following attempt (either through resit or repeating all or some of the assessment elements of a course) will normally be allowed only ONE further submission of assessment in a manner determined by the Progression and Award Board. Therefore (irrespective of the sequence of resits/repeat) students may be allowed THREE attempts to pass an individual course. The number of reassessment attempts permitted will be guided by the Progression and Award Boards consideration of the overall programme profile and the academic progress made by the student,

22

Undergraduate first degree classification 5.34 Each student will be awarded a degree classification according to the following rules. Aggregation and Weighting (Overall Grade Point Average) The class of Honours will be calculated on the grades achieved in stages 2 and 3 of a programme in the ratio of 25:75. Aggregation of grades to obtain the class of Honours will be based on averaging the full spread of grades in Stage 2 to obtain 25% of the final grade and averaging the full spread of grades in Stage 3 to obtain 75% of the final grade. Degree classification for the award of an Honours degree will be according to the following bands: 70% or more = First Class Honours 60-69% = Upper Second Class Honours 50-59% = Lower Second Class Honours 40-49% = Third Class Honours The Overall Grade Point Average will be rounded to the nearest whole number e.g. 69.5 will be recognized as 70 and 69.4 will be recognized as 69. For students who do not achieve the Overall Grade Point Average for a particular class of degree, the Progression and Award Board, in applying its discretion, will be guided by: Borderline Judgements

The Progression and Award Board may use its discretion in considering cases on the borderline of classification categories. A borderline case is normally defined as a student who has an Overall Grade Point Average within 2.0 percentage points below the classification percentiles stated in 5.34 above (eg. 38.0, 48.0, 58.0 and 68.0 respectively for Third, 2:2, 2:1 and 1st class degree classifications). The Progression and Award Board may consider the following when awarding a higher degree classification than that indicated by the Overall Grade Point Average: the overall student profile, taking into account the programme/award specification; the spread of grades obtained across all assessment tasks; and those courses in which the student has performed better or worse than the classification dictated by the overall average. Where there is sufficient evidence of higher aptitude, a higher classification may be awarded. recognition of the development of the student whose performance attained at final stage indicates a higher classification than the overall grade point average.
23

the views of the external examiner on the quality of the work of the student

Students with extenuation will be considered in accordance with regulation governing Valid Reasons for Poor Performance In deliberating the merits of borderline and exceptional candidates PABs MAY consider the following factors, particularly for those students whose overall average falls within a borderline classification Performance in key courses Performance in Final Stage Project Exit velocity: enhanced averages from Stage 2 to Stage 3. Extenuation Recommendations from external examiners

Extenuating circumstances Factors that may have affected a students performance form a natural part of the PABs view of progression of conferment. However, the PAB should not need to discuss any detail of a students circumstances but more the impact upon the result as advised by an independent Panel. It is expected that such work is delegated to an Extenuating Circumstances Panel. Whilst you may be engaged in the process of deciding and advising upon how to approach a student profile in the light of accepted extenuation, as an examiner you are not expected to attend or partake in any way in the acceptance or rejection of claims for extenuation by students. An EC Panel has delegated authority from a PAB to consider all claims relating to extenuating circumstances. The composition of an Extenuation Panel will consist of the School Director of Learning and Quality, School Quality Officer and additional membership determined by an individual School Board. Confidentiality will be preserved by the membership of Extenuation Panels. An Extenuation Panel considers all claims for extenuating circumstances and communicates its decision to the PAB and individual students A record of its decisions are be kept by the School Quality Officer. Decisions available to the Extenuation Panel will be the acceptance or rejection of claims (or parts thereof) or a request to the student for further information. Whilst indicating the severity and scale of extenuation to Progression and Award Boards, EC Panels, like PABS themselves, have no authority to amend individual marks. A PAB will use discretion regarding nature and timing of assessment (as of the first time). Grades will not be capped.

24

At final stage, a PAB MAY make an award (without further assessment) if there is sufficient evidence of aptitude. AEGROTAT awards are still permitted where PAB is satisfied that, but for illness or valid cause the standard would have been attained. IN this case and in the case above students may decline the award

Postgraduate Awards All general regulations governing undergraduate provision essentially apply to postgraduate provision (exceptions being that there are no detailed classifications as per undergraduate awards) Compensation limited to a maximum of 30 credits across the whole AWARD. Awards with Distinction are permitted where students attain an average of 70% across the programme. PABS may also make distinction awards, where there is evidence of exceptional performance. The conferment of a postgraduate award with Merit is permitted where an average of 60% across the programme is attained. HNC, HND and Foundation Degree Awards 5.39 a) Students who achieve a Grade Point Average of 60% or above in their final stage of sub-degree programmes will have that award conferred with merit. Foundation Degree and HND students who achieve a Grade Point Average of 60% or above at Level 5 will have that award conferred with Merit. To achieve an award of an HNC with Merit a student must achieve a Grade Point Average of 60% across all courses (150 credits).

b)

c)

5.40 a) Students who achieve a Grade Point Average of 70% or above in their final stage of sub-degree programmes will have that award conferred with distinction.

25

b) Foundation Degree and HND students who achieve a Grade Point Average of 70% or above at Level 5 will have that award conferred with distinction. c) To achieve an award of an HNC with distinction a student must achieve a Grade Point Average of 70% across all courses (150 credits).

26

Case Studies of PAB profiles leading to reporting issues

The following case scenarios are taken from the Higher Education Academy External Examiners Handbook and provide some detailed guidance on issues that might arise in PABS and how to report on them to the University.
Case study one
After reviewing a selection of exam scripts from a couple of compulsory modules taken in semester one, you feel that the marking has not been rigorous and is overgenerous. This is compounded by question-setters providing vague and poorly structured model answers. There is no full exam board after semester one so you send a detailed analysis and argument and request the Head of department consider re-marking or at least a review of the marking on these two compulsory modules. At the final exam board after semester two you find that nothing has been done and your views appear to have been put aside. The module leaders maintain they have spoken to colleagues and see nothing out of order with the marking. You feel marginalised and ask why there was no earlier response to you. The module leaders reply that as far as they were aware this exam board was the appropriate point to respond. You maintain that the marking of the modules does not meet the standards you have experienced in other institutions. The chair of the exam board cuts short any debate stating that there is no time now for review or re-marking as results and classifications have to be with the exams office by the end of the day. Reluctantly, and for the sake of graduating students, you agree to sign off the award lists but refuse to sign off the module mark sheets. The chair of the exam board signs these off. Key issues in this scenario 1. Poor quality of model answers. 2. Marginalisation of the external examiner. 3. No clear procedures for the timely addressing of the external examiners comments on semester one modules. 4. Process (results must be with exams office) taking precedence over integrity and fairness. Possible line of action Inform staff at the exam board that you will be taking the issue up in your report. Put a strongly worded paragraph in the report about the lack of response to your recommendations and request feedback on this aspect of your report. If there is still no satisfactory response write a confidential letter to the Head of the institution outlining the case and ask that the institution clarify the powers of the external examiner. Depending on the response from the Head decide whether or not you need to resign an inadequate response from the Head probably means you are a difficult position with lack of trust and mutual respect shown by departmental staff.

27

Case study two

On a validated programme at a collaborative partner to the awarding HE institution you see that there is a large failure rate (55%) on a compulsory core module in year 2. A selection of scripts is available to you on the afternoon before the exam board. There is no model answer or marking guide for the exam paper and you see that the exam has been marked by a team of staff. Your analysis shows that the problem appears to arise from students getting very poor marks on two questions and in your opinion some pretty harsh marking of their answers. Both questions appear to have been marked by the same member of staff. There is no evidence of double marking on any of the scripts. From informal conversations you gather that staff are not too worried by the high failure rate; it is a level 2 module and in aggregate level 2 modules only account for 20% of the marks going towards degree classification. Key issues in this scenario Has the partner institution followed the awarding institutions policy on assessment and examination? For example, does the awarding institutions assessment policy require double marking and/or provision of marking guides? Does the partner institution have a policy on internal moderation of team marking? Had the team actually carried out double marking or discussed the aggregate marks? Did the two questions with poor performance have sufficient clarity and content to allow students to produce answers with the rigour expected? Does the casual attitude of staff toward year 2 performance permeate all modules at that level? Possible line of action
1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Request a short meeting with the marking team prior to the main exam board to discuss your concerns informally. If there is no satisfactory outcome to the above, at the exam board ask the secretary to clarify the official institutional position with regard to double marking and provision of marking guides. Request the chair of the exam board/head of department to explain how question papers are constructed and agreed. Having gained a clear understanding of the procedures in the presence of departmental staff discuss whether or not they have been following the awarding institutions assessment guidelines. If there appears to be deviation from the examination policy of the awarding institution then the matter needs to be brought to the attention of the awarding institution. Point out that poor performance in year 2 can have a real impact on those students around classification borderlines. Indicate to staff that you will include in your report the need for a more professional approach to the setting and marking of year 2 modules. Await a satisfactory response from the awarding institution on the issue raised in your report and expect that in the coming year there will be a much more professional approach to year 2 modules at the collaborative partner institution.

28

Case study three

At the final exam board just under two-thirds of the finalists for a programme are around the upper second/lower second borderline. The board has discretionary powers to allow students within 1% of the borderline (60%) to be considered for the higher award, but apart from that there is no further guidance or policy on considering borderline cases. Ten students fall within the 58.8-59.3 range. Six of these students have a mark greater than 59.0 but only two have a dissertation/major project mark of over 60%. Four students have marks of 58.8-58.9, but three of these have dissertation/project marks well over 60% including one with a borderline first class dissertation/project. A long debate ensues covering such things as: simply sticking by the rules so all over 59% get put up; suggestions that only those with >59% overall and >60% on dissertation/project be put up; suggestion of finding additional marks f or the three students with <58% overall and >60% dissertation/project so that they can be put up; the need to agree to consider all borderline students on an individual basis.

Key issues in this scenario

1. 2. 3. 4.

Does the HEI need to write tighter or clearer criteria for discretionary powers of exam boards considering borderline cases? How rigorous is the marking of dissertations/major projects? Is there blind double marking with arbitration from a third marker if agreement cannot be reached? Is the assessment strategy exacerbating the tendency for bunching at borderlines (e.g. too many pieces of assessment having an equalising effect on candidate performance)? Is poor student performance at level 2 endemic and leading to bunching around the borderline?

Possible line of action

1.

2. 3.

Support the proposal that you consider best maintains integrity and fairness to all students. A majority of the board should support the proposal. The simplest option would be to apply the institutional guideline and have all those above 59% awarded an upper second. In practice boards often consider each borderline student individually rather than as a collective cohort of borderlines. In your report request the institution to review its policy on the discretionary powers of exam boards in borderline cases and ask for a response. Ask the department to review its assessment strategy to see if it can identify reasons for the severe bunching of candidates around the lower second/upper second boundary.

29

Case study four

In your first annual report on a foundation degree run by a partner college you point out a serious weakness in the assessment of a particular module. Exam results are poor and assignment briefs are poorly structured and vague. You recommend urgent action and review of the module. At the next end-of-year examination board you see the same problems with the module and that no action has been taken. You raise this at the board and the module leader says that this is the first he has heard of your comments. In a rambling discussion that follows it seems that your first annual report, sent to the awarding institution, took a long time to reach the partner institution and missed the annual programme review meeting. The module leader also maintains he did not attend a subsequent committee meeting when the report was discussed and no one informed him that there was a problem. Key issues in this scenario
1. 2. 3. 4.

Poor communication between awarding institution and partner institution and no mechanism in place to check timely arrival of external examiners annual report. The value of the partner institution conducting an annual review meeting without the external examiners annual report. Poor communication within the partner institution with the chance that some academic staff may not see the external examiners report. Potential for a very damaging QAA audit report for both the partner institution and the awarding institution.

Possible line of action

1.

2. 3. 4.

Ask the exam board to review all the marks there and then for students on the current run of the module making comparisons with mark patterns on similar modules and making adjustments to the marks of all students if appropriate. Request that a review of the module be carried out with a report to you before you write your annual report. Refer to the lack of action in your report and write to the Head of the awarding institution pointing out the risk to standards raised by poor communication with the partner institution. Be firm with the board pointing out that it is in the best interest of all (awarding institution, staff at the partner institution, students) to have a rapid resolution to the issue.

30

The Examiners Annual Report

Once per academic session, normally after the final Progress and Award Board has met, the University requires all its examiners to submit a formal report to the Institutional contacts. The report, which triggers payment of your annual fee, is circulated automatically to the Pro ViceChancellor with responsibility for quality matters, together with other central and School based staff that are responsible for considering the points raised in the report. (Heads of School, Heads of Department, Directors of Learning and Quality, School QA Managers, HE Coordinators in Partner Colleges and Quality Managers in the Learning and Quality Unit). The report is designed to allow the University to judge whether its programmes of study are meeting stated learning outcomes and to ensure that any necessary improvements are made, either immediately or at the next review, as appropriate. The report also allows the University to identify issues that require redress both at local School level and, where indicated, at institutional level Content The following topics are covered: the structure, organisation, design and marking of assessments. (which may include commentary upon the lessons to be learnt from the assessments for the curriculum, syllabus, teaching methods, resources and the way academic standards are being monitored) the appropriateness of the standards of the award being examined the overall performance of the students in relation to their peers taking comparable programmes of study/studying comparable subjects at the same level in other institutions (and which should include a commentary upon the strengths and weaknesses of the student group (not named individuals) and the quality of knowledge and skills, both general and subject specific, demonstrated by the students under consideration. In order to fulfil this, specific commentary is required in the report on individual teaching centres that the provision covers. commentary upon perceived good practice and innovation action points and recommendations for the School and the University at large

31

Deadlines for submission All Undergraduate reports following June PABs to be submitted no later than 31st July. Postgraduate Awards may be later if the awarding PAB is September/October or November for the cohorts that commenced in September of the preceding academic year.

32

Submitting your report using the Online Reporting System

The University has developed an online system for submitting an external examiners report. To gain access to this facility you need to navigate to

http://examiners.gre.ac.uk

To login you will need your email address and a password. This has been supplied with your letter of appointment. Having entered these details you will need to select the appropriate academic year. If you select a session prior to the current one you can view the reports that you have already submitted but may not amend them. Once you have logged in you will see this screen

External Examiner Web Site for 2005/06 Year: 2005/06 Change year Main Menu Welcome Professor [Your Name]

MAIN MENU

Introduction Submit/View Reports View/Update Personal Information Change Password or email address Email the University Learning and Quality Office EXIT

Click on Submit/View Reports to start your report. The following page will be displayed and will show the Programme titles or Subject areas to which you have been appointed.

33

By clicking on Start Report you are then guided through a set of pages which constitute the report. In the example above the examiner has already submitted two reports and by clicking on View Report these can be viewed. Under School and University Responses above, should a response have been made online you can view the response by clicking on the appropriate link. By clicking on Responses you can view the responses that you School has made to your report(s) By clicking on Change Year, you can go back and view your reports from previous sessions By clicking on Personal Info you can update your name, title, Higher Education Institution, address and contact phone number At any time you can log on and amend your personal information or change your password. CAUTIONARY NOTE: Once you have submitted a page of your report by pressing the "Submit" button you can no longer edit it and will need to contact the Learning and Quality Unit for assistance. We advise you to complete a Word version of your report and edit it fully before pasting it into the Universitys online system, but please do not send any reports via email to the University. A word version can be found on the Universitys web site at http://www.gre.ac.uk/offices/lqu/external-examining. .

34

Principles for completing your report

There are six sections in the online report, each requiring you to Submit and Continue before going on to the next section. Please note that once you have clicked to Submit you cannot then go back and edit the submitted section but will need to contact the LQU with details of amendments you may require. Section summary: Section 1: What have you seen and attended at the University? Section 2: Are our assessment processes effective? Section 3: Are the standards of our curricula and courses appropriate to the award(s) in question? Section 4: Is our student work at course and programme level comparable with other institutions? Section 5: Does the course meet professionally required standards? Section 6: What do we do well and what should we improve? Always provide additional detail if you disagree or strongly disagree with statements in forced choice questions or have strong recommendations to make for change. We need to know why you express this view so we can put in place actions to address any shortcomings you have identified.

In your report please do not name individual students or staff members in your annual report. If you do so they will be blanked in order to conform to the Data Protection Act.

If you examine work from the University and its Partners please ensure you provided commentary in ALL sections where appropriate on how the Partner(s) are also performing and name them. If you review work at many centres where this might not be advisable please report by exception. The University needs to ensure it is capable of identifying both excellent practices in our Partnerships as well as areas for immediate attention to improve.

35

Each section contains either a series of forced choice questions or free text fields. If you do not wish to add anything in the free text fields please state Not applicable or No comment this session or similar.

To help the University assess its Partnerships we request that you provide detailed comment on our ALL our Partners where this is pertinent to your role and where you have seen work from a variety of institutions.

36

Consideration of your report by the University

Your annual report is automatically distributed to key staff in your School and in the central quality Department once you submit it via the online reporting system. These staff are: Dean of School Head of Department School Director of Learning and Quality School Quality Assurance Officer Learning and Quality Unit

The Department is responsible for responding to you in relation to any recommendations and commendations that you make in respect of the academic provision. This response may take the form of a section and action plan in the relevant Programme Monitoring Report (PMR) and timed as part of the Universitys annual monitoring cycle or, at the present time, a fo rmal response via the online system. At the present time the PMR is completed at the end of September, and therefore you can expect a response to your report to be made available to you at this time if you are an examiner for undergraduate students, later in the session if you examine postgraduate work and the final exam Boards are not until much later than those for our undergraduates. Your report will also be made available to students through two mechanisms. The two mechanisms are: the Staff-Student Experience Committee/Programme Committee which are formally constituted School based meetings, or through individual application. The University is committed to putting in place opportunities for all students registered on the programmes for which you are responsible to see your report. This approach is aimed to meet the requirements of the QAA Quality Code. Your report will be made available to any student registered on the programmes which are covered by your report upon written request, and a statement to this effect will be place in essential information (handbooks) to students. In view of the scale of external examining, reports will not be made available to all individual students except upon request. Issues that you raise in your report that have a wider impact than at the subject level will normally be taken forward by the Learning and Quality Unit with the School or other appropriate support Departments where this is necessary. The LQU reviews all examiner reports each academic session and provides the Universitys Learning and Quality Committee with a summary of outcomes each academic session.

37

Reporting ongoing concerns

If you have reported serious concerns regarding the standards and quality of our courses and assessment processes it is expected that the Dean and Director of Learning and Quality in the School responsible will both investigate and action your recommendations and find solutions to any failure in standards. These will in the normal course of events be reported back to you via the online report system and you have the opportunity to comment upon how well the School has tackled these issues in your next report However, in extremely rare cases where there may be a persistent lack of action taken to serious issues and the issues themselves continue to represent a threat to the Universitys standards you have the following courses of action open to you as an examiner: 1. Report your concerns directly to the central University Professor David Maguire Vice Chancellor Queen Anne Court 10 Park Row London SE10 9LS There is no pro-forma for this. We would ask that you provide written details of the concerns you have raised, referencing your reports where appropriate. Please ensure a copy is sent to Learning and Quality Unit Pembroke 114 Central Avenue Chatham Kent ME4 4TB The Vice Chancellor will ensure that appropriate School/Partner and central staff meet to agree an action plan and report back to you PRIOR to the next block of academic teaching taking place. *If there are instances where you feel unable to endorse the awards made by a Progress and Awards Board, you should also utilise the above procedure. Until your endorsement is resolved all marks and awards will remain provisional.*

38

2. Report your concerns to the Quality Assurance Agency If, having written to the Universitys Vice Chancellor and there is still no agreed course of action reported back to you to address the issues within a timescale as agreed you have the opportunity to take this further and utilise the Quality Assurance Agency of Great Britains protocols for Raising Concerns about Standards and Quality in higher education. These can be found at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/candc/concerns/

39

Claiming Fees and Expenses

Responsibility for the payment of your annual fee, setting its annual level and payment of expenses incurred as part of your duties as an examiner is the responsibility of the School to which you have been appointed . Travel expenses can be paid only for standard (not first class) fares. You can claim your expenses as and when they occur within the academic session by completion of a claim form. This should be returned to the School Quality Assurance Officer. The form itself can be found at http://www.gre.ac.uk/__data/assets/file/0010/156970/Expenses-Claim-Form.doc In the normal course of events you should not need to claim for your fee, provided that you have submitted your bank details on your appointment. Submission of your annual report should trigger payment by the School. Some Schools however, do request that you claim your fee so please check what you need to do with your Quality Assurance Officer.

40

Termination of Appointment
Resignation If you are unable to continue to the end of your period of appointment, you should, normally, give the University reasonable notice of your intention to resign so that a replacement can be found and appointed in good time. At least one terms notice of termination of appointment is preferred by the University in order to protect the quality assurance arrangements for the course/programme. If you are likely to be unavailable for an extended period of time during the period of appointment the Dean of School should be informed as soon as possible. This will ensure that alternative external examiner arrangements can be put into place. Letters of resignation should be addressed to the Dean of School and copied to the Universitys central Learning and Quality Unit. Early termination of appointment Exceptionally, the University Learning and Quality Committee may terminate the appointment of an external examiner before the completion of his/her period of appointment. The following are circumstances under which the appointment of an external examiner may be terminated early: i. failure to comply with the regulations relevant to their appointment as set out in the Universitys Academic Regulations, (November 2010) are and where the appropriate Dean of School or Deputy Vice-Chancellor is unable to resolve the matter with the external examiner; failure to attend Examination Board or other School based meetings without good cause and without the prior agreement of the Chair of the Examination Board; failure to submit an annual report in accordance with the guidelines provided in the external examiners handbook, and within the specified time; where there has been a significant change in the circumstances of the external examiner in relation to their appointment; where there has been a significant change in the circumstances related to the course to which the external examiner has been appointed e.g. discontinuation of the course(s) or programme(s) for which the external examiner was appointed.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

41

In cases where consideration of early termination of appointment is required, the Dean of School must place the request, together with details of the reason for the request, to the Learning and Quality Unit. The LQU will write to the examiner confirming that such a request has been made and present the case to the Universitys Learning and Quality Committee, or, if appropriate, the Chair of the Committee, for immediate action. The formally confirmed outcome will be communicated to the examiner in writing at the earliest opportunity. Whistle-blowing Neither the raising of well-founded concerns about academic standards, nor the submission of a confidential report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) is a valid ground for termination of contract.

42

School of Architecture, Design and Construction All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Architecture & Urbanism Communications Media for Design Construction Management Landscape Architecture & Garden Design Property, Housing & Urban Regeneration Mr. Howard Gilby Ms. Nickie Hirst Mr. Stuart Allan Mr. Robert Holden Mr. Mark Daley 9228 9959 8220 9220 9387 H.M.Gilby@gre.ac.uk N.K.Hirst@gre.ac.uk S.Allan@gre.ac.uk R.Holden@gre.ac.uk M.Daley@gre.ac.uk Professor Neil Spiller Ms. Corine Delage Mr. Eric Denning 9109 9102 9204 N.Spiller@gre.ac.uk C.C.F.Delage@gre.ac.uk E.Denning@gre.ac.uk

Webpage

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/a-and-c

Business School All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Accounting & Finance International Business & Economics Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour Marketing & Operations Management Systems Management & Strategy Dr. Aleks Stojanovic Dr. Bruce Cronin Professor Barry Curnow Mrs. Albert Evans Mr. Tim Barry 7991 9786 9189 8828 9041 A.Stojanovic@gre.ac.uk C.B.Cronin@gre.ac.uk B.J.Curnow@gre.ac.uk A.J.Evans@gre.ac.uk T.Barry@gre.ac.uk Mr. Jonathan Sibson Dr. Jo Cullinane Mrs. Debbie Sheppard 9032 7880 9905 J.Sibson@gre.ac.uk J.Cullinane@gre.ac.uk D.J.Sheppard@gre.ac.uk

Webpage:

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/business

43

School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Creative Digital Technologies Computing and Information Systems Smart Systems Technologies Mathematical Sciences Professor Lachlan MacKinnon Mr. Phil Clipsham Professor Lachlan MacKinnon Professor Kevin Parrott 8559 8512 8559 8656 L.MacKinnon@gre.ac.uk P.S.Clipsham@gre.ac.uk L.MacKinnon@gre.ac.uk A.K.Parrott@gre.ac.uk Dr. Liz Bacon Dr. Cos Ierotheou Mrs Pat Hobbs Mrs. Heather Baynes 8514 8655 7856 9898 E.Bacon@gre.ac.uk C.Ierotheou@gre.ac.uk P.A.Hobbs@gre.ac.uk H.Baynes@gre.ac.uk

Webpage:

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/cms

School of Education All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Manager Quality Assurance Officer Mr. Chris Philpott Mr. Simon Leggatt Ms. Diane Coutinho Ms. Marisa Bartoli 9510 7669 9495 8134 C.J.Philpott@gre.ac.uk S.K.Leggatt@gre.ac.uk D.M.Coutinho@gre.ac.uk M.L.Bartoli@gre.ac.uk

Departmental Heads Education & Community Studies Centre for Leadership and Enterprise Lifelong Teacher Development Primary Education Secondary Education Dr. Keith Cranwell Dr. Jill Jameson Mr. Simon Leggatt Ms. Felicity Hilditch Dr. Elizabeth Morrison 9532 9502 7669 9563 9543 K.A.Cranwell@gre.ac.uk J.Jameson@gre.ac.uk S.K.Leggatt@gre.ac.uk F.Hilditch@gre.ac.uk L.Morrison@gre.ac.uk

Webpage:

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/education

44

School of Engineering All telephone extensions are prefixed by the dialling codes 01634 88
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Professor Ndy Ekere Mr. Alasdair Grant Mrs. Emma Collyer 3016 3032 3331 N.N.Ekere@gre.ac.uk A.Grant@gre.ac.uk E.Collyer@gre.ac.uk

Departmental Heads Civil Engineering Computer & Communications Engineering Professor Amir Alani 3518 m.alani@gre.ac.uk D.I.ArmourChelu@gre.ac.uk M.W.Sharp@gre.ac.uk M.D.Butler@gre.ac.uk

Dr. David Armour-Chelu 3578 3621 3421

Business Information Technology Mr. Mike Sharp for Business Systems Engineering Dr. Malcolm Butler

School of Health and Social Care All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Acute and Continuing Care Family Care & Mental Health Health Development Psychology & Counselling Ms. Heather Spittles Ms. Karen Cleaver Ms. Maureen Mounty Professor Pam Maras 8071 8075 8757 9627 H.A.Spittles@gre.ac.uk K.P.Cleaver@gre.ac.uk M.C.Mounty@gre.ac.uk P.F.Maras@gre.ac.uk Dr Linda Burke Mrs.Veronica Habgood Ms. Kim Oliver 9150 9922 8679 V.A.Habgood@gre.ac.uk K.J.V.Oliver@gre.ac.uk

Webpage:

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/health

45

School of Humanities All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Communications and Creative Arts Society, Political and Cultural Studies Greenwich Maritime Institute Law and Criminology Ms. Aliv Adil Dr. Linnell Secomb Professor Christopher Bellamy Ms. Sarah Greer 9065 8951 7689 7539 A.Adil@gre.ac.uk L.Secomb@gre.ac.uk c.d.bellamy@gre.ac.uk S.J.Greer@gre.ac.uk Dr. Zoe Pettit 9183 Z.C.Pettit@gre.ac.uk

Webpage:

http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/humanities

Medway School of Pharmacy All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 01634 88
Dean of School Professor Iain Cumming Ms Trudy Thomas (Post Graduate Programmes) Directors of Learning and Quality Dr. B. Apampa (Under Graduate Programmes) Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Biological Sciences Chemistry & Drug Delivery Clinical & Professional Practice Prof. Alistair Mathie Prof. Iain Cumming Dr. Buge Apampa 3541 3802 3640 a.mathie@gre.ac.uk k.i.cumming@gre.ac.uk b.apampa@gre.ac.uk Not applicable 3640 B.Apampa@gre.ac.uk 3802 k.i.cummimg@gre.ac.uk

3176

T.Thomas@gre.ac.uk

46

Medway School of Science All telephone extensions are prefixed by dialling codes 0208 331
Dean of School Director of Learning and Quality Quality Assurance Officer Departmental Heads Pharmaceutical, Chemical & Environmental Science Sport & Life Sciences Dr. Mike McGibbon Dr. Samer El-Daher 9729 8303 M.J.McGibbon@gre.ac.uk S.S.El-Daher@gre.ac.uk Professor Martin Snowden Dr. Richard Blackburn Mr. Brian Banks 9981 9966 8787 M.J.Snowden@gre.ac.uk R.O.Blackburn@gre.ac.uk B.G.Banks@gre.ac.uk

47

Getting to your campus

Greenwich Campus University of Greenwich Old Royal Naval College Park Row Greenwich London SE10 9LS To contact the East Gate Security Lodge call: 020 8331 7616 By road: please note, that traffic is heavy in Greenwich, parking around the university is limited and the regulations are strict, so we advise visitors to use public transport whenever possible. From the M25 take the A2 turn-off to London and join the A2. Continue straight ahead on to the A102. Take the turn-off signposted Greenwich (A206). At the roundabout take the first exit to Greenwich. Continue along the A206 for approximately 1 mile. Turn right at the traffic lights into Park Row. The campus is on your left and a public car park is on your right. If driving from the Blackwall Tunnel, exit on to the slip road for the A206 Greenwich. For more information on driving to the campus, log on to www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel. By train: there are trains to London Bridge, Cannon Street or Charing Cross to Greenwich station, or to Maze Hill on the same line if travelling from Kent. By Tube: the nearest Underground station is North Greenwich on the Jubilee Line. Then take a 188 bus to the campus. By Docklands Light Railway (DLR): Cutty Sark station is close to the campus and is on the line to Lewisham. If travelling from London on the Tube, change for the DLR at Bank or Tower Gateway. You can also alight at Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line and catch the DLR from nearby Heron Quays. By bus: log on to www.tfl.gov.uk/buses for information.

48

Medway Campus University of Greenwich Central Avenue Chatham Maritime Kent ME4 4TB To contact the Gatehouse telephone: 01634 883138

By road: from London/the M25 take the A2 towards Dover. Just before the A2 becomes the M2 move into the left-hand lane to join the A289 to Gillingham. Follow signs to Gillingham. As you leave the Medway Tunnel, branch left and at the roundabout take the last exit marked universities. Then follow signs to the campus. From east Kent take the A2/M2 towards London. Exit at Junction 4 and take the A278 towards Gillingham (or follow anchor signs). Follow signs to Chatham Maritime/Medway Tunnel. Then follow signs to the campus. To park on campus, visitors must obtain a temporary permit from the Gate House. For further information, log on to www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel. By train: there are frequent services to Chatham and Gillingham from Charing Cross, London Bridge, Cannon Street and Victoria stations. There are also services from Ramsgate and Dover. By bus: there are a number of bus companies operating services in Medway. You can find a list of these or links to their websites at www.medway.gov.uk/index/environment/publictransport/buses.

49

Avery Hill Campus

Southwood Site Avery Hill Road Eltham London SE9 2UG To contact the Security Gatehouse call: 020 8331 9101 Mansion Site Bexley Road Eltham London SE9 2PQ To contact Security at Mansion Reception call: 020 8331 9484 By road: at Junction 2 of the M25 take the A2 towards London or, if coming from London, take the A2 towards Dover. Exit the A2 at the Danson Interchange for Sidcup, Welling and Bexleyheath (A221). Drive through Blackfen on the A210 to the junction with Avery Hill Road, and at the traffic lights with the petrol station opposite, take the left filter lane into Avery Hill Road (B2214). For Southwood Site, continue forward along Avery Hill Road. Southwood Site is on the right after the park. For Mansion Site, turn right on to Reinickendorf Avenue; take the last turning on the left for parking. For further information, log on to http://www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel . Please note that parking charges apply to the Avery Hill Campus. For further information, please visit www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel. By train: services to Eltham, Falconwood and New Eltham from Charing Cross, Waterloo East and London Bridge. By bus: Log on to www.tfl.gov.uk/buses for the latest information. A

50